E 

^75 




"^^^e^^My 



^ 




'y/ 




I 



,y'^ 










(cl ISOO IS 



Oass 



J 



SPEECH / / - 



OP 



miBo (SdXDiE. 



7f^ 



'9 

OF lllINOIS, 

OH TB£ 

RESTRICTION OF SLAVERY 

IN MISSOURI. 

Delivered in the House of Representatives of the United 
States, February 4, 1820. 



Mr. COOK, of Illinois, rose and addressed the 
committee, as tollows : 

Mr. Chairman : In rising to address the committee on 
the subject now under consideration, 1 feel greatly that 
embarrassment which is incident to youth, in addition to 
that which is almost necessarily felt by all in approach- 
ing a subject so delicate and momentous in its nature. 
And, sir, were I otherwise situated than I am, I should 
gladly withdraw from the conflict, and leave the field to 
those whose age and experience better qualify them to 
maintain it. But, in addition to the common interest 
which is felt by all the friends of this amendment, I feel, 
and the people whom 1 have tlie honor to represent re- 
ally have an interest peculiar to themselves. • The exist- 
ence of slavery is acknowledged on all hands to be a 
misfortune and an evil in our country, and experience 
furnishes sad evidence of the evils and inconveniences 
which are felt in those states where it does not exist,* 
from its existence in a neighboring state. Missouri and 
Illinois are separated only by tlie intervention of the' 
Mississippi river : their immediate adjacency, therefore, 
1 



Mr. Chairman, gives rise to a particular interest, superad- 
ded to the common interest felt by the people ofllhnois. 
'I'hus situated, I feel it my bounden duty to give the 
amendment my support, and shall give that situation as 
an excuse for my venturing to trespass upon the attention 
of the committee, by taking a share in this debate. 

But, Mr. Chairman, before I^engage in the examination 
of those great questions which are involved in this a- 
niendment, I must beg the indulgence of the committee 
wliile I attend to some remarks which have fallen from 
gentlemen in the course of this discussion. It has been 
remarked as frequently as gentlemen have been heard in 
the opposiiion, that they are sworn to support the con- 
stitution ; and it has been further said by a gentleman 
from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) that those who support 
the amendment are striving to enter the temple of the 
constitution at the hour of midnight, to violate its sanc- 
tuary. It is further said by a gentleman from Massachu- 
setts, (Mr. Holmes,) that they are striving for power, and 
are paving the way for some master juggler, behind the 
scene, to ride into the Chief Magistracy of the nation. 
[Here Mr. Holmes interrupted Mr. Cook, and observ- 
ed, that he had said, that he beUeved there was a party 
who had conjured up this hobby, playing a deep game, 
and who, he believed, intended to try to turn this meas- 
ure to their advantage, and ultimately to secure to their 
leader the Presidential chair. But that, from that party 
he had expressly excepted the gentlemen of this com- 
mittee.] Without having any recollection of the excep- 
tion HOW spoken of by the gentleman, continued Mr. C. 
I must say, that the explanation has made the insinuation, 
which I before considered a direct atttack upon the in- 
tegrity of those with whom I am acting on this occasion, 
no less unpalatable than it was before. That there has 
been a hobby conjured up out of doors, and by urgmg it 
that we are striving for power, and that a master juggler 
at the head of that party, behind the scene, expects to 
turn that power, if attained, to his advantage, is, to my 
mind, leaving the imputation as strong in fact, though 
not so in expression, as I originally understood it. Sir, 
if I were to look through this committee for one to sus- 
pect of being under the influence of such motives as have 
been insinuated by the honorable member, there is no 
m.an on whom that suspicion would sooner fix itself than 
the gentleman who has just interrupted me. And I 
would further remark that'l, as well as gentlemen in the 
opposition, have sworn to support the constitution ; and 
while I will say to them " act in pursuance of your ho- 
nest convictions," allow me also to do the same. 



In the course of my observations, Mr. Chairman, I shall 
not repose with confidence on all the positions which 
gentlemen have assumed who have preceded me in sup- 
port of this amendment. I shall, however, undertake to 
prove that the constitution, according" to a fair and liber- 
al construction of that instrument, does vest the power in 
Congress to leg-islate upon this subject; that the treaty, 
even if it were competent for a treaty to do so, has not 
infringed that power : and I shall further undertake to 
prove that it is expediejit to exercise it. 

In doing this, Mr. Chairman, I shall not rest alone upon 
the provision in the constitution which imparts the povt'er 
*« to provide for the general welfare." But I shall be 
far from considering this Mr. General Welfare, as the 
gentlemaa from Kentucky, (Mr. Hardin,) has styled that 
provision, a great political scoundrel. No, sir, I shall 
look to him as my great captain, my captain general, in 
the march of my argument, and shall discard all argu- 
ments which are not promotive of his interests. Nor sliall 
I, Mr. Chairman,as that gentleman, as well as a gentleman 
from Virginia, (Mr. Smyth,) has done, complain of and 
denounce the propriety of being furnished with the sen- 
timents of the people, through memorials, pamphlets, or 
resolutions, as they may choose to communicate them, on 
this important subject. No, sir, I hold the right of the 
people to assemble, and make known their wishes, opin- 
ions, and feelings to their representatives, in any decent 
manner which they may choose to adopt, too sacred 
either to be abridged or discouraged by treating' the re- 
sult of their enquiries with entire neglect ; much less 
with entire contempt. Sir, I rejoice that I live in a 
country where the people have the right of discussing all 
measures of government ; and I still more rejoice, that 
they exercise that right. While they do exercise it, 
there may be some hope of preserving the purity of our 
institutions. Each man, by thus discussing those meas- 
ures, becomes more or less qualified to stand as a centi- 
nel on the watch-tower of the nation, to guard its liber- 
ties, and, as he becomes qualified, his wilhngness increas- 
es to perform that holy duty. I will be the last man to 
invade this high prerogative. 

I shall not, therefore, as those gentlemen have done, 
treat those pamphlets, memorials, and resolutions, with 
contempt and severity, but with respect and deference ; 
reserving to myself the right, however, of judging of the 
constitutionahty ofall measures; for I do not consider in- 
structions, either legislative or popular, so binding as to 
require the representative to violate the constitution ; 
but they are certainly entitled to great weight in decide 
mg upon matters of poUcy. 



But, sir, to proceed to the constitution. The 9th section 
of the first article contains the following- provision : 
/ "Tlie migration or importation of such persons as any 
\uf the states now existing shall think proper to admit, 
shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 
1808 ; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such impor- 
tation, net exceeding ten dollars for each person." 

Gentlemen in the opposition have differed as to the 
objects to which those two words « migration, and im- 
portation" apply. Some say they apply exclusively to 
slaveSjbut contend they were used as synonimous terms. 
Others say that tlie power to prohibit migration is 
given in aid of the power to prohibit importation. And 
others contend that it is given to prohibit the migration 
of free white persons, when the public security may re- 
quire it. From the language of that clause of the con- 
stitution, Mr. Chairman, without any other evidence of 
the intention of its framers, I think it must be apparent 
to every candid mind, that they meant slaves, and slaves 
only. For, although the existence of slavery in the na- 
tion required many constitutional provisions in relation 
to them, yetyou will find that whenever slaves are meant, 
the word persons is invariably used in describing them. 
But, it is said by the gentleman last up (Mr. Hardin,) that 
the restriction as to the time when Congress shall exer- 
cise this right of prohibiting the importation and migra- 
tion of slaves, is a restriction upon power, and no de- 
legation of power ; and that the power of prohibiting 
migration does not exist in Congress, even after the 
year 1808, the period at which the restriction expi- 
red. What, sir, a restriction upon power, when no power 
exists to be restricted ! That no power shouldexist in Con- 
gress to prohibit the importation, or migration of slaves ; 
nnd that the framers of the constitution, should still 
deem it necessary to restrict the power of Congress, 
previous to the year 1808, is to my mind attributing to 
iliat body the commission of an absurdity, that, to say the 
least, appears in no other part of that instrument. No, 
sir,the restriction upon any power necessarily pre-suppo- 
ses the existence of that power ; and, although this 
clause of the constitution does not contain a delegation 
of power in express terms, it does, by a necessary and 

universal rule of construction, admit its existence. It is, 
sir, in technical language, a negative pregnant, negating 

Cfhe power of Congress for a given period, and affirming' 
it after that period. But, sir, if this clause of the con- 
stitution mean white persons in any part of it, why con- 
fine it to the states "now existing?" If it were neces- 
sary to restrain Congress from passing laws prohibiting 



the migration of free white persons into the states 
already settled, and admitted into the Union, I can see 
no good reason for leaving that power unrestricted, 
when new states, not then admitted, and which might 
stand in greater need of population, should come in 
question. Such a construction, sir, is hostile to the ob- 
vious im]^rt of the language made use of by the framers 
of the constitution, and still more hostile to the genius of 
our government, which intends to open its bosom as an 
asylum, and invite emigration. But that the word 'im- 
portation* was intended to apply to slaves, is admitted on 
all hands, and, if so, I would ask, why insert the word mi- 
gration directly after it, and leave them both to apply to 
the word persons, without distinguishing between the 
kinds of persons on whom they were respectively to 
operate ? But, Mr. Chairman, we are fortunately provid- 
ed with the JQurnal of that convention who bequeathed 
to this nation I (trust) the eternal charter of our liber- 
ties, the federal constitution ; and, as this clause of that 
constitution is to have an important bearing upon this 
subject, according to the view I take of it, I beg leave to 
ask the attention of the committee to such part of its 
history as I conceive calculated to shed any light upon 
the subject. -^ 

In the 4th section of the 7th article of the report of the 
committee of five, who reported to the Convention the 
plan of a Constitution, the following proposition will be 
found : « No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legislature, 
(meaning Congress,) on articles exported fx-om any 
state ; nor on the migration or importation of such per- 
sons as the several states shall think fit to admit ; nor 
shall such migration or importation be prohibited." By 
this proposition it will be seen, that no tax was to be im- 
posed either on migration or importation. Nor was such 
migration or importation ever to be prohibited by Con- 
gress. When this report of the committee was taken 
up in the Convention, it was moved to insert the word 
* free,' before * persons,' and thereby defeat the restric- 
tion which was intended to be imposed on the power of 
Congress, to tax the importation and migration of slaves. 
The question not being taken on that day, the proposed 
amendment was, on the following day, withdrawn, leav- 
ing the slaves as yet free from taxation, and placing it 
beyond the power of Congress to prohibit their importa- 
tion or migration, wheresoever the states might think fit 
to admit them. But, sir, previous to this period, the great 
question of apportioning the representation had been 
discuss, d for near forty successive days; and it was rea- 
dily seen by the members from the non-slave-holding 
1 # 



Slates, that, if they T)ermitted the perpetual im- 
portation of slaves, and also tlie migration of those 
slaves, into the new states, that, from the great number 
that might be imported, and that might migrate with 
their owners into the new states, the balance of power 
might always be held against them by the accumulation 
of slave representation ; they therefore moved to com- 
mit that clause to a committee for compromise and a- 
mendment; and the committee accordingly reported, 
two days thereafter, the following amendment, as a sub- 
stitute for the clause committed : " The migration or im- 
portation of such persons as the several states now exist- 
iVi^shull think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited 
by the Legislature, (meaning Congress,) prior to the 
year 1800, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such rs.i- 
gration or importation, at a rate not exceeding the ave- 
rage of the duties laid on imports." By this proposed a- 
mendment, Mr. Chairman, it will be seen that the right 
of importation and migration was to be confined to such 
states then existing, as might think proper to admit 
them ; and also to leave Congress to the exercise of its 
sovereign power on these subjects, which embraced the 
right of prohibiting their migration or importation, after 
the year 1800. But the right to lay a tax both upon im- 
portation and migration, according to the average duties 
laid on imports, was still reserved. 

This provision, however, did not suit the views of the 
southern states, and, accordingly, on the next day it was 
moved to extend the restriction to 1808: and it was a- 
greed to. But, lest it should be misunderstood as to 
what description of persons this pi-ovision was intended 
to apply, it was on the same day moved to substitute the 
following instead of the before recited clause : *' The im- 
portation of slaves into such states as shall permit the 
same, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature of the 
United States until the year 1808.'* This proposition, be- 
cause it used the obnoxious term " slaves," because it 
did not except new states, and because it reserved no 
right to impose a tax on such importation, was promptly 
rejected. 

The provision now in the Constitution was then pro- 
posed and adopted ; varying, as will be seen, from the 
report of the select committee, which had left both the 
importation and migratien of slaves subject to the aver- 
age duties of imports, so as to make their importation 
only subject to taxation, and limiting that tax to so mod- 
erate a sum as to prevent Congress from virtually pro- 
hibiting such importation by the imposition of a heavy 
tax, and leaving the migration, whicli, Mr. Chairman. 



means nothing more nor less than the femoral of slaves 
fi'om one state to another, free from taxation ; an excep- 
tion that was necessary to be made in order to preserve 
inviolate that clause of the Constitution which had pro- 
vided that « no tax or duty shall be laid on articles ex- 
ported from any state." 

Having" thus traced this provision in the Constitution 
to its final adoption, I think there can be but one opin- 
ion, at least as to the description of persons on whom it 
was intended to operate. And I think the examination 
will also contribute much to prove that the right was un- 
derstood and intended to be vested in Congress, to pre- 
vent the migration of slaves into the new states, from the . 
time of the adoption of the Constitution, and even in the 
old states, after the year \8(J8 — a power essentially ne- 
cessary to check an evil which produced so much diffi- 
culty in setting the principles of the Constitution. 

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we can 
plainly see through all this mysterious arrangement of 
dates and restriction to the then existing states, if we 
will for a moment advert to the ordinance of '87, by 
which the faith of the old Congress was pledged to ad- 
mit into the Union the new states to be formed within 
the boundaries of the North Western Territory, as non- 
slave holding republican states. If the power of Con- 
gress to restrict slavery had have been tied up in relation 
to the admission of those states until the year 1808, new 
states might have come into the Union prior to that pe- 
riod, from that quarter ; and, if they had desired slavery, 
the power of virtually repealing that ordinance might 
thus have been given to those new states, which was a 
compact between the people of tne United States and 
of that territory, and subject to be dissolved only by 
their mutual consent. And hence also the delegation of 
that discretional power which Congress has, of admitting 
new states or not, as 1 sliall attempt to prove hereafter. 

But, sir, slavery unhappily existed in our country pre- 
vious to the adoption of the present Constitution; and, in 
order to secure the blessings of a union of the states, 
which, by their joint energies and with the united sacri- 
fice of their blood and treasure, had achieved a glorious 
independence, mutual concessions were necessary to be 
made to and by the respective sections of the empire. 
Slaves, therefore, because they formed a considerable 
share of the southern population, and not because they 
gave strength to, for they in fact enfeebled the physical 
force of the country, it was agreed should be represent- 
ed in Congress, making five slaves equal to three white 
persons in the enumeration. And in the same spirit of 



« compro'jilse and concession to the South, the right te 
import slaves and also t© take them from state to state, 
as the states themselves mig-ht allow, until the year 1808, 
was also guaranteed by that clause of the Constitution. 
And, in consideration of these advantages, the south sur- 
rendered in favor of the north the right to Congress to 
stop both their importation and migration after that pe- 
riod. And, sir, the word migration here, is sufficiently 
explained, when I say that the right to import into the 
states on the sea-board might not be construed to imply 
the right of migrating vvitli them to states in the interior, 
and hence it was deemed necessary to guarantee, prior 
to 1808, as well the right of migration as of importation. 

To test the correctness of this construction, Mr. Chair- 
man, let us examine the practical exposition which this 
article has received since the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion down to the present period. Gentlemen, I am re- 
joiced to say, both from the south and north, have dis- 
played a noble, a magnanimous, and indeed, sir, I might 
say, an equally holy zeal, to put down that diabolical and 
unchristian practice, which has so long disgraced the 
civilized world, the slave trade. In 1807, Congress pass- 
ed a law expressive of the deep abhorrence of that 
nefarious traffic, which was felt by the nation, to take 
effect on the 1st day of January, 1808, the first hour that 
it could operate after the expiration of the restriction 
imposed by the Constitution on the power of Congress 
over that subject. That law forbade the importation of 
slaves into the United States, or any of their territories, 
and imposed a heavy penalty for its violation. On the 
20th of April, 1818, a supplement was passed to that act, 
providing new guards and penalties against such impor- 
tation. On the 3d March, 1819, another law was passed, 
authorising the employment of the armed vessels of the 
United States, and an appropriation of 100,000 dollars 
was made still to further the views of the country, to put 
down this baleful and unhallowed practice. Thus the 
zeal and the wisdom of the government has been exerted 
for twelve years, in the cause of humanity. 

But, sir, from what source, I demand of gentlemen, 
have they derived this power? from what provision in 
the Constitution do they derive the power to employ 
the money and the arms of the nation, to rescue these 
unhappy beings from the hands of lawless oppression 
and vile cupidity ? Sir, it is the same clause of that con- 
stitution from which I derive my power to vote for a pro- 
hibition to the migration of slaves into Missouri. And if 
gentlemen will search that constitution till, like the gen- 
^eraan from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph) their eyes are 



worn out in the service, they can find it no where else. 
But, I ask, do they find it in that clause ? No sir, it is not 
there — that clause contains no delegation of power — 
It is a restriction upon power. According-, therefore, to 
this course of reasoning-, there is no pow-er in Congress to 
prohibit this infamous, this disgraceful traffic, and gen- 
tlemen have, in this case, as well as in the admission of 
new states upon condition, heretofore been exercising an 
usurped authority. Sir, such is not the fact, nor will 
gentlemen consent to such reasoning. No Sir, we have 
the power to prohibit the importation of slaves, and 
that very clause gives us the power — and it gives it to 
us by construing it, as I have once said, as a negative 
pregnant negativing the power of Congress to prohibit 
such importation until 1808, and after that period afiirm- 
ing that power. Sir, it is by this course of reasoning 
and this only that we can arrive at any power to act up- 
on this subject. We therefore, Mr. Chairman, have pow- 
er in both cases, or we have it in neither. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, I have now shewn that if Con- 
gress has the right to prohibit the importation of slaves 
into the United States, that it has the power to prohibit 

* their migration mto the proposed state of Missouri. 
And I trust, sir, when I come to treat of that provision of 
the constitution which authorises the admission of new 
states into the union, I shall be able to satisfy the com- 
mittee that it was the intention of its framers to leave 
this very subject open to the future decision and legisla- 
tion of the nation. But, before I ask the attention oY the 
committee to that part of the subject, I will beg leave to 
offer a few remarks in relation to the practical exposi- 
tion of the power of Congress to admit states into the 
Union upon conditions. 

Congress, at its first session after the adoption of the 
present constitution, passed a law declaratory of the vali- 
dity of the ordinance of*87, in which it was provided 

♦ that in the states to be formed therefrom slavery should 
not exist. Tliis law w^as approved by die illustrious Wash- 
ington, who had just before witnessed the deliberations 
of the convention, on that interesting and important sub- 
ject of slavery, and had all those adverse feelings and 
jarring interests, which attended that discussion in the 
convention, fresh in his recollection— for he was Presi- 
dent of the Convention. 

Sir, every President, I believe, who has been in office 
since the time of Washington down to the present day, 
has approved some act admitting a new state into the 
Union : and none has been admitted, since that period, 
which has not had some condition prescribed as the terms 



10 

of its admission. Even the present chief magistrate, Mr. 
Monroe, has recognized this doctrine in the admission 
both of Alabama and llhnois, and he has recognized this 
very identical restriction ou condition, in relation to the 
latter. Yet gentlemen tell us, it is all a barefaced usurpa- 
tion of power which Congress has-been thus exercising, 
and which all the Presidents have been sanctioning. 

Sir, I will not cast that reflection upon those illustrious 
personages who have administered this government, nor 
upon those gentlemen who have preceded us in this bo- 
dy, which so bold an accusation implies. That such a 
system of usurpation should continue in practice without 
interruption for thirty years — sanctioned by almost every 
successive Congress in some shape or other, by Wash- 
innton, Adams, Jefierson, Madison, and even the present 
chief magistraie Mr. Monroe, is to my mind a position 
which would only be taken in a desperate cause, in sup- 
port of a desperate measure. Sir, a construction, thus ac- 
quiesced in, becomes somethingjiike a principle of the 
government not now to be shaken, and particularly by 
those who have heretofore acquiesced in it and given it 
their sanction. 

But, for the sake of argument, admit that the ordinance 
■was unconstitutional at the time of its adoption, in conse- 
quence of the want of power in the old Congressto agree 
to the admission of new states without consent of nine 
states, which gentlemen say was not the case — does not 
the present constitution give that power to a majority of 
both Houses ? and did not the first Congress under 
this constitution virtually re-enact it when they passed 
the act adapting it to the new state of things? Surely they 
did. But I will go further, and admit that the sixth Arti- 
cle was intended only to operate on the Territory, and 
that under its original enactment it had performed its of- 
fice, when states were organized. Yet it must be borne 
in mind that it has been revived, even if that were the 
case, three several times since, I mean when those states 
which it embraced appUed for admission, and has, by vir- 
tue of such revival, became now a matter of compact, 
between each of those states and the United States, and 
I think Congress would consider it a violation of that 
compact for either of those states to undertake to admit 
slavery hereafter. 

In the case of Stuart against Laird, (1 Cr&nch, p. 299,) 
decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 
1803, this doctrine is laid down : 

" Another reason for reversal is, that the Judges of the 
Supreme Court have no right to sit as Circuit Judges, 
-not being appointed as such, or, in other words, that they 



11 

ought to have distinct commissions for that purpose. To 
this objection, which is of recent date, it is sufficient to 
observe, that practice and acquiescence under it for a 
period of several years, commencing with the organiza- 
tion of the Judicial system, affords an irresistible answer, 
and has indeed, fixed the construction. It is a contemi- 
porary interpretation of the most forcible nature. This 
practical construction is too strong and obstinate to be 
shaken, or controlled. Of course the question is at rest 
and ought not now to be disturbed." And, in the case 
of the United States' Bank, so ably argued, and then so 
ably decided by the same Court during the last winter, 
(See 4 Wheaton, 400.) the Court recognizes the same 
doctrine, contending however, without the aid of prece- 
dent, that the charter is the offspring of legitimate legis- 
lation on the part of Congress. 

Mr. Madison also,in his Message to the Senate, in 1816, 
communicating his disapprobation of the bill which had 
passed both houses of Congress incorporating a national 
bank, makes these observations : — "Waving the question 
of the constitutional authority of the legislature, to es- 
tablish an incorporated bank, as being precluded, in my 
judgment, by repeated recognitions, under varied 
circumstances, of the vaUdity of such an institution, in 
acts of the legislative, executive and jud cial branches of 
the government, accompanied by indications in different 
modes of a concurrence of the general will of the nation," 
&c. 

Thus, Mr. Chairman, it will be seen, that, upon the 
principles established by the Supreme Court, recognized 
in two cases which I have cited, and upon a principle re- 
cognized also by President Madison, this question 
should now be considered as in some degree settled, if 
not precluded. The gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. 
Hardin,) however, will not admit that precedent ought 
to have any weight in settling the principles of the con- 
stitution What ! not a precedent made by some of the 
very framers of that constitution .•' A precedent also pro- 
duced by a concurrent legislative exposition ? Sir, Gen. 
Washington and Mr. Madison, who have both given their 
approbation to this construction, were members of that 
convention. And, yet, shall it be said their construction 
should have no weight ? The gentleman, however, 
claims, I perceive,the benefit of precedent, when it oper- 
ates in his favor. He tells you that Missouri is entitled 
to admission from her numbers, although the constitution 
says nothing about numbers. Yet, he says, that other 
states have been admitted with less than sixty thousand, 
which forms a precedent by which Congress ought to be 



12 

governed, in admitting Missouri Sir, I will be candid. 
I will admit the force of his precedent — I think Missouri 
entitled to admission, but, in recognizing" her right upon 
precedent, I certainly must claim the benefit of my own, 
and ask the gentleman,with the same frankness, to do the 
like. 

Having shown, Mr. Chairman, as I think I have, that 
Congress have the power to prohibit the migration of 
slaves to Missouri, and, from the practice of the govern- 
ment, that conditions not inconsistent with the federal 
rights of the state may be tendered as the terms of ad- 
mission, I will now proceed to examine that clause of the 
constitution which says, " New states may be admitted by 
the Congress into this Union.'* From the very language 
of this provision, there would seem to be an implied ex- 
istence of a discretion in Congress to admit or reject. In 
the justness of this construction, however, gentlemen 
generally concur on both sides. But it is contended by 
the gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. Hardin,) as well as a 
gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Smyth,) that Congress 
has no other power but simply to reject or admit ; that 
* a state* is a definite term, as used in the constitution, 
and implies in its definition a negation of the power of 
Congress to interfere further with it than to see that it is 
republican. To this^ argument, Mr. Chairman, I think it 
would be a sufficient answer to say that, if Congress may 
reject, some reason ought to be assigned for such rejec- 
tion, and if it is not a reason in conflict with the exercise 
of the federal rights of the state, that such reason might 
as well be suggested as a condition, as to hold back, and 
reserve its disclosure till the constitution is presented. 
But, Mr Chairman, I have said, while discussing another 
branch of this subject, that the discretional power which 
this clause of the constitution gives to Congress to admit 
or reject, was given with an.*eye to this very subject. 
That it was given for the purpose of allowing Congress 
to prohibit or admit the extension of slavery, as in its 
wisdom might seem most conducive to the general wel- 
fare. And, to establish this position, I will now ask the 
attention of the committee to the history of this provi- 
sion, while under the consideration of the Convention. In 
tlie draft of a constitution reported on the 6th of August, 
by the committee of five, after proposing that it should 
be n-ecessary for two-thirds of the members present, of 
each branch of Congress, to consent to the admission of 
new states, they further report, tliat "If the admission be 
consented to, the new states shall be admitted on the 
same terms with the original states.*' On the 30th of 
Augvist, when this part of the report of the committee 



13 

was acted upon, it was moved to strike out that part of it 
which proposes their admission on " an equal footing 
with the original states," and it was agreed to. 

Previous to this time, I will again repeat, it was agreed 
that the slaves should be represented, and also that the 
states then existing should have the right of deciding 
whether they would tolerate the importation or rmgra- 
tion of slaves previous to 1808, or not. To say that the 
new states, therefore, should be admitted on the same 
terms with the original states, was to give to them the 
power also of admitting or rejecting slavery ; and as, in 
the exercise of that power, the new states might destroy 
the leading principle of this compromise, by giving the 
balance of power to the slave-holding states, and allow 
its unlimited expansion ; and because it would, as I 
have before stated, virtually authorise the new states 
to be formed in the N. W. Territory to repeal the re- 
striction imposed by the compact contained in the ordi- 
nance of '87, it was stricken out, leaving Congress, there- 
fore, to exercise the very discretion which is now pro- 
posed to be exercised in admitting Missouri. 

This conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think is fairly deriv- 
able from the premises which I think I have as fairly 
employed. Indeed, sir, I think it must be obvieus to all 
who have adverted to the Journals of that Convention, 
that tlie intention was, to settle the principles which 
should apply to the then existing states, permanently, 
and to leave the manner and time of admitting new states 
to be regulated by Congress, guaranteeing, however, to 
such new states the same federal rights which were secur- 
ed to the old. The great object, Mr.Chairnun, was to unite 
in one common federative government the then existing 
states, and to secure to those states the power of guard- 
ing their common interests. They had fought and they 
had bled in the cause of freedom, and, in establishing a 
form of government for themselves and posterity, it could 
not be expected that they would leave a question, which 
presented greater difficuliy in agreeing upon the 
principles of that government than all others, in such a 
situation as to put it in the power of the new members 
that might be introduced into the family, to unhinge and 
destroy those very principles. I mean the compromise 
of representation. That they would thus expose the 
very foundation upon which their government rested to 
be torn up by future states, and that, too, with their 
sanction, I think can scarcely be believed. 

But, sir, I would here beg leave to call the attention of 
the committee to a proposition made in that Convention, 
and which was very near bemg adopted, as strongly in- 
dicative of the views and feelings of the framers of our 
cy 



14 

Constihition, when reflecting^ upon this very subject.-— 
On the 14th July, the following- proposition was moved : 
" 'I'hat, to secure the liberties of the states already con- 
federated, the number of representatives in the first 
branch, from the states which shall hereafter be establish- 
ed, shall never exceed the representatives from such of 
the thirteen United States as shall accede to this confed- 
eration." This proposition was made while both the 
subject ot representation and the admission of new states 
was under consideration ; and on the very next day after 
the Convention had adopted a provision which had for its 
object the reg-ulation of the representiition in this branch 
of Congress, according- to the population of the respect- 
ive states ; but, as Cong-ress would have the power of 
admitting- or rejecting- new states, and the power of de- 
creeing- whether these states should decide on the admis- 
* sion of slavery, it was therefore unnecessary to restrict 
the representation of such states as the wisdom of Con- 
g-ress mig-ht allow to participate in the blessings of the 
Union, to a less number than their population, upon ag-e- 
neral and equal representation, might entitle them. 

It was therefore rejected, but rejected by a bare ma- 
jority of one vote only. My proposition, then, is, that the 
Convention did intentionally use these broad expressions 
for the purpose of leaving Congress thereafter to exercise 
its discretion on this subject in admitting new states. Hav- 
ing trespassed thus long upon the attention of the com- 
mittee, Mr. Chairman, which it has so kindly shewn to 
me through this dry, and what would be on other occa- 
sions uninteresting examination, an examination, howev- 
er, which I trust, on this occasion, will throw some light 
upon the seemingly obscure intention of the framers of 
the constitution — but, sir, if it shall fail to convince oth- 
ers, that Congress has power to legislate constitutionally 
upon this subject, I trust it will at least afford an excuse 
for the opinion which I entertain ; and remove those 
lurking suspicions, which have occasionally unfolded 
, themselves, sometimes in doubtful, and,at others, in more 
glo^^'ing and unfading colors, of the sincerity of those 
with whom I co-operate in supporting tliis amendment — 
having done this, Mr. Chairman, I will now proceed to 
examine the nature of the treaty, by virtue of whose pro- 
visions Missouri claims an exemption from this restriction, 
and by virtue of which, gentlemen * demand' her admis- 
sion into the Union as matter of right; and see if there 
is anything in that treaty which impugns the power 
which Congress would have had in relation to this sub- 
ject if the third section of that treaty had not have been 
incorporated in that instrument. Sir, what are the pro- 
visions of this treaty ? They are, first, ♦* that the iuhabN 



15 

tants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into 
The Union of the United States," And, under this pro- 
vision, I admit that the faith of the g-overnment stands 
pledged to admit them into the Union. But, it is fur- 
ther provided, " that they shall be admitted as soon as 
possible, according to the principles of the federal con- 
stitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, 
and immunities of citizens of the United States." The 
question then arises, what was the object of this latter 
provision ? Was it to give them the right of framing 
a constitution and presenting themselves at your door for 
admittance, as soon as they pleased to apply ? No, sir. 
If such were the intention, why pass a law new authoriz- 
ing them to frame a constitution ? No, sir, it was to se- 
cure to them, in the first place, the rights of citizenship,, 
without going through the tedious and regular process 
of naturalization ; and also to secure to them the protec- 
tion of the United States' Government. 

Sir, is it to be said that the relative rights of citizenship 
P/ere not of sufficient importance to give rise to a provi- 
sion securing those rights ? I presume not. Shall it 
DC said that the right to be protected by the United States 
against savage and all other depredations, was too unim- 
portant a consideration to give rise to such a provision ? 
Surely not. But they are to be incorporated into the 
Union ; and how are they to be incorporated ? Why, 
sir, according to the principles of the federal constitu- 
tion, and according to those principles, too, which ap- 
ply to the admission of new states ; for, can it be behev- 
ed, that if the framers of tlie constitution ever cast their 
eyes across the Mississippi, with the most distant belief 
that that boundless region was ever to be carved out into 
American states, and form a part of that federal family to 
which they were then giving new birth ; that they in- 
tended that the territory, a part of which (I mean the 
)iow state of Ohio) was hallowed by the blood of the re- 
volution, should be on a worse footing than the Presi- 
dent and Senate might put the territory now under con- 
sideration ; that it should be admitted, under any circum- 
stances, without being subject to the power of Congress 
to exercise a sound discretion as to the terms of such ad- 
mission ; a discretion which I hope 1 have shown was in- 
tended to be guaranteed to Congress, when that provi- 
sion was stricken out of the report of the committee of 
five, before referred to, tlie object of which was to admit 
new states into the Union « upon an equal footing with 
the original states ?" Sir, I think it cannot be believed 
that the Convention intended to subject tlie principles of 
that compromise, which so much agitated that body, and 
which formed the basis of the Union, to be thus disturbed 



16 

—nay, destroyed, and arm Congress with no redeeming 
powei' to prevent it. 

This treaty, therefore, if it were possible for any treaty 
to do so, has not attempted, according to its fair construc- 
tion, to infringe that power, in its fullest extent, which 
Congress has to regulate the terms of the admission of 
new states. 

But, say gentlemen, this is a federal right ; the right to 
hold slaves is guaranteed by the federal constitution, and 
therefore is a federal right, with whick Congress can- 
not interfere. The right to hold slaves guaranteed by 
^ the federal constitution ! No, sir ; it was a right which 
existed before, and the federal constitution has only pro- 
vided against the invasion of that right in such of the then 
existing states as choose to recognize it as a right. This 
was necessary to be done, because they were then recog- 
nized as property, and without the consent of the states 
they could not be made to assume a higher station. The 
right to hold slaves, therefore, is not created by the con- 
stitution. Nor is it a federal right : it is a state right ; 
or, in other words, a state wrong, with which, by its con- 
sent, it may part, by compact with the general govern- 
ment, without committing any violence upon its federal 
rights. Nay, it is a right of which it could be deprived, in 
future, by passing a non-migration law by Congress. The 
provision then in the constitution, Mr. Chairman, which 
provides for the reclamation of fugitive slaves when they 
go into non-slave-holding states, is only a necessary regula- 
tion which grew out of the previous existence of slavery 
in the Union, and does not therefore create the right to 
hold slaves. And by this course of reasoning, Mr. chair- 
man, I think I fully answer so much of the argument of 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Hai'din) as has been 
employed in opposition to this restriction, as is drawn 
from the technical meaning of the word state. But, sir, 
let us test, by further illustration, the soundness of that 
argument. The gentleman says, state and nation are 
synonimous terms, and thatas^a^e, in the interpretation to 
which it is entitled, under the constitution, is as sove- 
reign as a nation, except so far as that sovereignty is a- 
bridged by an actual and express transfer of a part of its 
sovereignty to the United States, in their federal charac- 
tor ; and because there is no express surrender of this 
power, (though I believe he called it a right,) to decide 
whether they will have slavery or not, that therefore it is 
a sovereign right, which cannot be surrendered. Sir, allow 
this interpretation of the word state, and what does it 
lead to ? Is there any express provision, in so many 
words, authorizing Congress to retain or hold the right 
of soil in any state, unless by compact ? No sir. Is it 



T 



i: 

not then a trait of sovereignty, as a nation, for the sove- 
reign to take possession of the vacant lands within that 
nation ? Surely it is. If then there is no express provi- 
sion authorizing Congress to retain the property in such 
soil, according to the argument of the gentleman it is as a 
sovereign right, belongs to the state, and cannot be surren- 
dered. Are the committee prepared to recognize this 
doctrine ? No ; I presume that even the gentleman him- 
self is not. 

But the same gentleman tells us, that even if we have 
the power, which by this time I trust I have shown, at 
least to the satisfaction of some, that it is impolitic to ex- 
ercise it; that public sentiment is aroused, and so much 
divided, that even the cabinet is believed to be divided 
on this great and interesting question, and that therefore 
it is too delicate a measure to be pushed. What ! the 
cabinet divided ! How does the gentleman ascertain 
this fact ? And, even if it were the fact, what influence 
should it have upon the question ? I could answer for 
one, but will leave others to answer for themselves. But, 
sir, I will again remark, on the subject of power, that, as 
Congress has acquired this territory without express au- 
thority to do so, I should for one say we have at 
least as good authority to say that it shall not come into 
the Union, as states, unless it is upon those principles 
which will subserve tJie general welfare ; for it must have 
been with a view of promoting the general welfare that 
it was purchased, and that view should, at no change of 
its condition, be lost sight of. 

Mr. Chairman, I am told this is a northern trick — a 
northern scheme to get into power. For one, I can an- 
swer, that I am governed alone by a dwsire to promote 
tlie welfare of my country, and to discharge, with the 
best of my abilities, the high trust which has been con- 
fided to such feeble hands. AlTd, while I make this de- 
claration for myself, I derive consolation from the con- 
viction that I am associated with men governed by mo- 
tives no less exceptionable. Sir, I believe this measure 
has originated in the best and noblest of motives ; mo- 
tives dictated by humanity and the ultimate happiness of 
this nation. But, even if I believed it originated in cor- 
ruption, I would support it. I would support it, because 
I believe it has for its object the attainment of an end of 
the last importance to the nation. I would support it, 
therefore, as an evil out of which good might come. Mr. 
Jefferson was charged with supporting the revolution to 
cancel his British debts : F, however, do not believe it : 
yet, if it were true, from evil motives he was supporting 
a glorious cause. I wotUd support this ipeasure, sir, but 

a.* 



18 

would, wIUi equal zeal, oppose the same gentlemen in 
their attempts to make an improper use of the decision 
of the question in their favor. But I ag-ain repeat tliat 
I have every confidence in the integrity and exaltedness 
of the motives which dictated this measure, and also of 
the motives which unite g-entlemen in its support. 

We are further told, Mr. Chairman, that it is a northern 
trick, intended to injure the prosperity of the western 
country. What, sir! a trick to injure the western coun- 
try ? Let Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois answer the question. 
"No, sir, it is a measure which is to open new inducements 
to their own citizens to migrate to that country, and 
thereby weaken themselves. It is a measure which is to 
g-ive to the west a vigorous, industrious, and wealthy po- 
pulation. It is a measure pregnant with the ultimate 
grandeur of that country. But I am here brought to a 
still more important view of this subject; a view, sir, 
which has much weight upon my mind ; one which I, as 
a representative of the west, feel bound to obey : I mean 
its effect upon the Union, in a political point of view. 
Sir, from a similarity of interests, of institutions, and of 
feelings, the North and the West, at least so far as 
slavery is regretted, will feel disinclined to dismember- 
ment. A reciprocity of all those inducements which 
operate to cement communities will keep them together. 
The South and the West will also have a no less bind- 
ing community of interests to hold them together. — 
The western non-slave-holding states, therefore, will 
stand, in relation to the North and the Soutli, not only as 
neutrals, but as their common allies. Sir, those states, 
from their local situation, will have a deciding influence 
111 every attempt at dismemberment: and a section of 
our country thus happil) situated should be placed upon 
tliat footing which will give it most influence and most 
strength in harmonizing the jarring and conflicting in- 
terests and feelings, which time may unhappily develope, 
between the other sections of our empire. 

Mr. Chairman^ I am sorry to have to advocate any 
measure whicli is calculated, as I conceive this is, to 
give perpetuity to our Union, and, at the same time, to 
be compelled to avow the necessity of assigning that as 
a reason upon this floor. The sound of disunion, a term 
so horrible in itself, if possible, should never be uttered 
within these walls. Yet it h^ been uttered so uften in 
this debate, and has become so familiar, that it is high 
time to begin to adopt measures to prevent it, and also 
to exi)ress our solemn disapprobation of any measure or 
any proceedings in the least degree calculated to pro- 
duce it. Sir, when 1 hear gentlemen, in the heat of ar- 



19 

gument, as was the case with two honorable gentiemei; 
from Virg-inia, (Messrs. Smyth and Randolph,) speaking 
to their constituents, and to the South generally, calling" 
upon them " to make common cause," to stand united ia 
resisting, even with •' thost- arguments about which the 
law is silent," this asserted usurpation of authority — an 
appeal which is calculated to excite the angry passions 
of the community — 1 must confess, sir. that 1 am aroused, 
and thrown from that calmness which, I think, should 
characterize this discussion. If such declarations are em- 
ployed as mere rhetorical flourishes to embellish their 
speeches, or intended only to intimidate the members of 
this committee, for one, sir, I can answer, that they will 
have no such effect upon me. But, sir, they are declar- 
ations which will find their way to the public eye, the 
pubhc ear, and, what is still worse, to the pubhc feelings. 
They will not, as the honorable gentleman from Georgia, 
(Mr. Reid,) has told us, die within these walls. Would 
10 hdaven they could ! But, like all other bad tidings, 
they will spread throughout this land, and consequences 
which gentlemen do not expect, and which I am sure they 
cannot wish, may yet disturb the repose of this nation. I 
hope gentlemen will remember that it is much easier to 
excite rebellion and insurrection than it is to suppress 
it. The ball of revolution and civil war, Mr. Chairman, 
I when once put in motion, has seld im been arrested by 
\the same hands which gave it impetus. No, sir, en the 
contrary, those who put it in motion are too often the 
first who fall beneaih its ruins. France affords gentle- 
men melancholy evidence of this truth : let the spirits 
of Mirabeau, Hobsepierre, Danton, Barras, and even Na- 
poleon in person, give it verity. Let it once be put in 
motion in this country, which will necessarily be the re- 
sult of great public excitement, and, like an irresistible 
torrent, it will roll across this mighty empire, destroying 
alike its promoters and opposers. 

Alas ! I sicken at the doleful picture which my ima- 
gination has already drawn on this subject ! Is it, indeed, 
the intention of gentlemen to arouse our brethren of 
tlie south to rebellion ? to a resort to arms to re- 
sist this exercise of power, by the representatives of the 
* people ? Is it, indeed, for the purpose of bursting those 
bonds asunder by which we are united, that they thus 
appeal to the angry passions of their countrymen ? Are 
these the objects of the gentlemen from Virginia ? And 
sfor what is this union to be thus sacrificed ? In defence 




nursery of patriotism ; the birth place of our Washing- 



£0 

ton, the father of his country ! Vir^nia go to -war in de- 
fence »f slavery? No, sir, it cannot, it will not be. The 
sober feelings of this nation, and of Virg-inia in particular, 
however they may be excited for the moment, will re- 
deem us, I trust, at all times, from such awful calamities. 
This mighty empire ; this strong" man armed, is not thus 
to be shorn of all his greatness. But, sir, it is not the 
first time that attempts have been made to disturb the 
tranquility of that patriotic state, by her unhallowed mal- 
contents ; by appeals to the angry passions of her citi- 
zens : No, sir. I find record evidence of the existence 
of a similar spirit as far back as the time of Washington, 
and the celebrated treaty of Mr. Jay. It is this, sir : 

" Richmo7idy Jidy 31. — Notice is hereby given, that, in 
case the treaty entered into by that damned arch traitor, 
John Jay, with the British tyrant, should be ratified, a pe- 
tition will be presented to the next General Assembly 
of Virginia, at their next session, praying that the said 
state may recede from the Union, and be left under the 
government and protection of one hundred thousand free 
and independent Virginians." 

This notice concludes by requesting the printers of Me 
present Umo7i,2LS they then called it, to give it publicity, for 
the purpose of creating a new union — (here Mr. Barbour 
called for the title of the book, from which Mr. C. read 
this notice, and was answered by Mr. C. that it was called 
the " Memoirs of Jefferson," which perhaps were libel- 
ous; he could not say) yet, Mr. Chairman, this intemper- 
ance had but little effect. Gentlemen may, therefore, 
indulge in rhetorical flourishes, and in drawing the hi- 
deous pictures of disordered imaginations, without endan- 
gering the union. Sir, it is in tlie patriotism, the intel- 
ligence, and the sober judgment of the people, that the 
anchor of our safety consists. And in these virtues, I 
trust the patriots of Virginia will not be deficient. 

I regret, Mr. Chairman, that the remarks of gentlemen 
have thus drawn from me what perhaps had better never 
been said, and what, I am sorry to remark, I have felt 
myself called upon to say, in the discharge of my duty ; 
and having done so, I will now proceed to the examina- 
tion of the expediency of this restriction as an object of 
national concern. 

Mr. Chairman, we have attempted to plant in the Ame- 
rican soil the principles of free and republican govern- 
ment ; we have attempted to set an example to the 
world, of the capacity of man to govern himself, and of 
securing to all tlie enjoyment of equal rights. But,alas ! the 
brilliancy of this example abroad is too much darkened by 
• the gloom which slavery spreads over it ; and while we 
continue to spread tliat gloom, the happy intluence of re- 



21 

publican government will continue to be weakened, till, 
ultimately, like the sun, whose rays are obstructed by an 
impenetrable cloud, its influence will be lost entirely. 
It is due, then, to the dignity of this government, to show 
the world, that slavery only exists in the bosom of our re- 
public from uncontrollable necessity ; a necessity forced 
upon us by our parent country. But, when we give to 
it new root, and spread it beyond its ancient borders, are 
our practices consistent with our professions ? Do we 
then show that it exists only from necessity ? or do we 
not show that it exists, at least in a part of our empire, 
from choice? Sir, it is due to the character of our gov- 
ernment for consistency. 

Since the year 1808, every exertion has been made to 
abolish the slave trade. Gentlemen from all sections of 
the Union, and at all times, have united most heartily in 
this humane undertaking. And for what purpose ? Sir, 
it was to prevent an accumulation of that evil which so 
♦sorely afflicted our land, and to encourage which, heaped 
so much disgrace on all who were engaged in it. But 
this was not the only reason. The cries of humanity, 
and the soft whispers of religion, also demanded the 
measure. And if these motives have operated so long 
and so universally in the Councils of this country, shall 
not the same motives now arrest the progress of this evil 
in its attempt to plant itself in that boundless region 
west of the Mississippi ? Not only does consistency, but 
the vital interests of this government, demand it. To ex- 
tend and more firmly rivet the chains of slavery, is but 
to hasten the epoch which I shudder to mention. 

Sir, in the very nature of man is interwoven a love of 
•freedom : it is a passion of the most ardent and inde- 
structible character. It is a passion which, while bound 
in chains, lies like the hidden spark, ready to be fanned 
into a flame by the first breeze of hope. They are a 
race of beings like so many vipers in the bowels of the 
community. Is it not, then, our duty to use our best ef- 
forts to preserve our posterity, if it be not necessary to 
preserve ourselves, from a slow but certain fate, which 
an unchanged state of things must inevitably produce. 
The gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Smyth,) has read to 
us an account of many of the civil wars, with all their at- 
tendant horrors, which have resulted from the existence 
of two different classes of people in the same govern- 
ment. And, while the gentleman has given us a sight of 
these blood-stained pictures of human misery, for the 
purpose of proving the position that two distinct classes 
of society cannot safely exist in the same country, and 
thereby to prove the necessity of diffusing this class of 
society so as to keep them in harmless numbers, and 



22- 

also to rivet their chains so tijjht that they \vil4 be una- 
ble to act in concert ; they afiord to my mind a warning 
arg-ument of the necessity of their emancipation and co- 
lonization, before another picture shall be added to that 
gloomy collection, with which the committee have been 
presented by that honorable gentleman. For, sir, I re- 
peat it, that, if tlie warning voice of experience tell us 
that it has been the tale of all countries where two dis- 
tinct and heterogeneous orders of society have existed, 
I sooner or later to wade through wars and bloodshed, that 
even America, the seeming favorite of Heaven, unless 
limely measures are adopted to avoid it, will not share 
a better fate. It is, with me, tlierefore, a leading consi- 
deration, to limit the sphere of this dangerous population, 
with an eye to its ultimate eradication from the bosom of 
our country. And, sir, I rejoice, that a proposition has 
this morning been laid upon your table, by a member 
from New York, (Mr. Meigs,) proposing an enquiry into 
the practicability of effecting that ebject. For one, I 
am prepared to devote every inch of the public soil west 
of the Mississippi, if so much shall be necessary, to the 
redemption of our country from this fatal, this deplora- 
ble evil. 

But, sir, even if this evil cannot be eradicated, I am un- 
willing to extend it. Notwithstanding our brethren of 
the south deny that slavery has a pernicious influence 
upon the morals of society now, tlie experience of all past 
ages prove that when they shall be sufficiently nw- 
7nerous to pervade every ramification of society, that 
such will be the effect. That it should be 'other- 
wise, when, from their number ani^ the cheapness of 
their labor, the free citizens of the country either need 
not, or cannot, for the want of sufficient compensa- 
tion, be employed, than that idleness and luxury should 
here produce the same effects they have always produ- 
ced in other countries, cannot be believed. In Athens, 
idleness and luxury were considered the parent of crimes, 
the disturbers of society. So dangerous were they con- 
sidered, that Solon, their great law-giver, required eve- 
ry individual to pursue some trade or profession. Nay, 
so essential was it considered to the permanency of the 
government, and happiness of the people, that even Pis- 
istrates, who had sufficient address to usurp that govern- 
ment, required the observance of that law after he came 
into power. But alas ! that government, which once so 
justly boasted of its statesmen, its orators, and its philo- 
sophers, under the baleful influence of that idleness and 
luxury which succeeded the abrogation of those salutary 
laws, became an easy prey to foreign cupidity, and is now 
living, or was, not long since, under the government of a 






black eunuch, elected from the Turkish seraglio. Hu- 
man nature is alike, and is only noble or abased, as cir- 
cumstances decree. 

* But, sir, the day will come, when we must get rid of 
this evil, or the evil will rid itself of us. And there are 
but three ways in which to do it : by emancipation and 
colonization, by amalgamation, or by extu-pation. In 
one of these ways, if ever, Mr. Chairman, we must get 
rid of this evil, and to hope for it in either of the last 
mentioned ways, is so revolting to our feelings, and so 
uncongenial with our nature, that no member of this 
committee, I trust, will look to either of them as the pro- 
per expedient. Tis, then, by emancipation that we ought 
to hope to remove this pestilence, this foul blot from our 
country. And will it be seriously contended, that the 
more they are spread throughout this land, the easier 
that object will be attained ? No, sir ; the love of ease 
and pleasure are the scions which shoot from the root of 
slavery. The more they are extended, therefore, the 
more will this canker spread, so fatal to liberty, and the 
more difficult will it be to effect their manumission. For, 
can it be doubted that this work is to be done by the 
combined influence of public sentiment and legislative 
exertion^ and by that only ? And if so, in proportion as 
you expose that sentiment to the extended influence of 
the temptation to ease and pleasure, in that proportion 
you diminish the prospect of success. The policy, there- 
fore, of en>ancipation and extension, are hostile to each 
other — are inconsistent. 

This, Mr. Chairman, is a fortunate period at which to 
embark in this cause. The world is at peace, with the 
exception of Spain, and are almost equally united in abO" 
lisliing the slave trade. If we, therefore, cast our eyes 
across the ocean to Africa, the land of their fathers, we 
may hope to be able to procure a resting place for them, 
where they may enjoy peace and quiet, as well as our- 
selves. The public sentiments of mankind, and, from 
the evidences which have been given, I should hope 
the sentiments of this nation, are in their favor. 

For what purpose are your extensive Colonization and 
Bible societies organized ? are they simply to ape the 
English ? No sir, they are the offspring of sound policy, 
humanity, and religion. Sir, I have an honorable gen- 
tleman now in my eye, (Mr. Mercer) whose zeal in the 
cause of humanity in promoting the views of the Coloni- 
zation society, does honor to his heart and his character; 
yet I fear, on the subject under consideration, his views 
and opinions are at war with tUose great and benevolent 
exertions, for which he is so justly distinguished. But, 
while the fact that the world is at peace, tells us it is a 



24 

favorable period to embark with harmony and good fel- 
lowship in this work—It tells us still more — It tells us 
that, if in this attempt to eradicate this evil, we cherish 
domestic dissentions among-st ourselves— if we foster par- 
ty feuds, and geographical distinctions— that a portion, at 
least, of that peaceful world may feel disposed to em- 
bark in our difficulties, and ultimately destroy the fail- 
temple of our Independence. Sir, there was a time, I 
mean the time of the western insurrection, and of 
French mtrigue in tliis country, that our liberties and 
Constitution stood on tottering ground. It was at that 
time that foreign interference had almost proved our 
destruction. They were times, perilous indeed And it 
was then that France, by her minister, more properly in- 
deed her emissary, fanned that flame which was rapidly 
melting the cement of our Union — it was then, that for* 
eign influence and interference gave us a warning lesson 
against feuds of a similar character. But, Mr. Chairman, 
we then had a Washington, a Washington whose fame 
had filled the earth, to direct our ship of state. It was 
then, that one glance from his all penetrating eye drove 
dismay to the traitor's heart. Through the political 
storms of that day he safely steered us, and, thank hea- 
ven, left us safe in our moorings. But, shall such times 
revisit our land ? We l^ave no Washington to guide us, 
we must contend with the storm as we can. 

I would here, then, call upon gentlemen to pause and 
consider whether this subject should not be discussed, 
with that calmness and friendly feeling which should 
characterize a great nation, legislating upon a great sub- 
ject. 

But, we are told, Mr. Chairman, that this is a great ques- 
tion, and one which should be compromised, by admit- 
ing Missouri with the right to settle this question herself, 
and to prohibit the extension of slavery in the re- 
mainder of that country. This indeed is a course 
which many gentlemen seem to desire. But, are 
we to understand gentlemen as conceding the point, that 
Congress has the power to make that restriction or 
territorial prohibition perpetual and binding on the 
States hereafter? [Here Mr. Lowndes smiled and shook 
his head] An honorably gentleman shakes his head, who 
has favored this proposition,and I am thereby left to under- 
stand, that such is not the nature of the proposition. 
Then away with your compromise. Let Missouri in, 
and the predominance of slave influence is settled, and 
the whole country will be overrun with it. Indeed, I am 
opposed to any compromise on the subject. I consider 

it my duty to aid in arresting the evil, and a duty of so 
high a nature, as to amount to a constitutional duty, em- 



25 

braced within the oath which I have taken ,to support 
that instrument. 

It is enjoined upon the Union to protect each state, 
when called upon, against invasion and domestic violence. 
The existence of slavery is calculated to produce both of 
these evils. It will not be forgotten, that England, the 
bulwark of our religion, has already arrayed the savages 
against us— a manner of making war, no less vile and ab- 
horrent to the feelings of civilized humanity, than would 
be the arming of our slaves. The existence therefore 
of slavery in a state, is calculated to invite invasion, and 
no one will deny, that it exposes the state to domestic 
violence. If it be the duty, then, of the Union, to expend 
the funds, and what is more sacred, the blood of our 
countrymen, to repel invasion, and to suppress domestic 
violence, is it not a good consideration on the ground of 
expediency to prevent, if possible, the existence of those 
causes which may thus disturb the safety of the state, 
and the tranquility of the Union? It is a reason that has 
much weight on my mind, however lightly it may be 
viewed by others. There is, Mr. Chairman, an argu- 
ment which had escaped me, that has been urged against 
the justice of this restriction ; it is this : " That the 
country was purchased with the joint funds of the nation, 
and therefore should be left open to all." The short an- 
swer to this would be, that the non-admission of slaves 
prevents no free man, whose money has been contribut- 
ed to the purchase of the country, from going there. 
But, Sir, since there is a conflict on the subject of slavery, 
a subject, which has much divided the nation, is it more 
reasonable that the sixty thousand who have gone there, 
should settle this great question, than the ten millions by 
their representatives, who compose this nation, and who 
have all an equal interest in it ? I should think, Sir, that 
if it were a matter of feeling only, involving no great 
political principle, that it would look more reasonable, 
that the nation should decide it, rather than so small a 
portion of it. as sixty thousand. Several millions of peo- 
ple may yet inhabit Missouri, and the 60,000, therefore, 
should not be entitled to the right of deciding a question 
of so much magnitude, and which is so interesting to our 
common country. Freemen will not be unwilling to 
live with freemen. If slavery be prohibited, therefore, 
the freemen of all sections can and will go there, but, 
thousands, nay, millions of our freemen are, and always 
will be, unwilling to mingle with slaves ; by the nation, 
and not the handful now in Missouri, therefore, should 
this question be settled, provided it has the right to 
do so. 



26 

;Mr. Chairman, in the time of our revolution we ap- 
pealed to Providence to aid us, because our cause was 
just ; and, 1 must here be permitted to say, that I am su- 
perstitious, if it be superstition to believe, that our con- 
duct, as a nation, is passing hourly in review before him 
who sits aloft, a«d that we shall decline or prosper as that 
cojiduct is acceptable. May we not, tlien, Mr. Chairman, 
make this great and crying evil, a great and glorious 
good to our country ? May we not, by directing our 
energies to the amelioration of their condition, and their 
ultimate emancipation, render ourselves acceptable, in our 
political character, to him whose favor is most desirable. 

Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, for I fear I have wea- 
ried the patience of the committee, I will take leave 
to remark, that I am from the south, that I am a native 
of Virginia.* That my ancestors (as far back as I can 
certainly trace them, and that is not very far, for I am of 
no noble birth,) are from Virginia ; my relations and 
friends are all in the south, and, sir, I have brothers and 
sisters in Missouri, and if affection for them, and a desire 
to gratify any one, could be sufficient to induce a relin- 
quishment of my fixed sentiments, my feelings toward 
them would have that effect. In their household they 
have slaves, and, like frail man in general, who are in pos- 
session of a convenience, they wish to hold to them. But 
duty must triumph over feeling, when they come in 
contact. 

Mr. Chairman, I know many of the people of Missou- 
ri ; I know she has many men of worth and talents, and 
I believe they ought to have a state government. But, 
notwithstanding all the predilection 1 have in favor of 
Missouri, from the residence there of friends, relations, 
and acquaintances, I cannot consent to her admission un- 
less her adoption of the principle of this restriction is 
certainly guaranteed. 

And while I have no doubt that I am opposing the po- 
pular feelings of Missouri at this moment, that if the voice 
of futurity could be heard, I should receive its approba- 
tion, nay, I believe its gratitude. I believe I am advo- 
cating her substantial interests, and of which she will ul- 
timately be satisfied ; and I am sure I am advocating 
the best interests of this nation. Missouri, therefore, may 
come, as the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr.Holmes,) 

*Mr. Cook, since making his remarks, upon examina- 
mination, finds that he was born a few months after Ken- 
tucky was detached from Virginia, and in Kentucky, 
which, until since he spoke, he thought at that time was 
a part of Virginia. 



27 

lias so pathetically described, from the wilderness, witii 
her locks wet with the dews of the night, and knock, and 
knock, and knock, at your door for admittance, till she 
falls with weakness, and unless she comes in the white 
robes of freedom, and a pledge against the future evils of 
slavery, with my consent she shall not be admitted. No, 
sir, she may take up her march and return to the land 
from whence she came. And the gentleman from Mas- 
sachusetts may escort her, and aid in forming his favorite 
connection between her and Mexico : that they may set 
up for themselves, when he will have a fit theatre upon 
which to display his abilities, and gratify his ambition. 

A word more to that gentleman, and I have done. 
During the war I saw his exertions, and I loved hira. 
He was aiding my country with patriotism and ability. 
She needed such aid, and as I loved that country, I also 
loved him. But, I fear, he is presuming upon the char- 
acter he then acquired; is taking liberties with otl*2rs 
not to be sanctioned. Yet, sir, I will not say to him, as 
the Poet said to his once loved mistress, that 

" When I lov'd you, I can't but allow, 

I had many an exquisite minute. 
But the contempt tliat I feel for yeu now. 

Hath far more luxury in it." 

No, sir, it might seem too severe. But, I will take 
leave to refresh his memory in relation to some good ad- 
vice, flowing from a high and venerated source : " Judge 
not lest ye be judged, for with what judgment ye judge 
others shall ye be also judged. Point not at the mote 
in the eyes of others, while there is a beam in thy otv^n 
it is the province of hypocrites so to do." 

Mr. Chairman, I have done. 



ami 



:i:.-x;:.j^-D'.-,vx.>.:;>:v>'-'v-^-7'-^;'^-'^-oi.?<- 



'm 



msmmmmm 



. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





011 837 070 3 



